Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 691 discussion

Correct answer BE

B & E seems to be the most logic

A - Volume Gateway is typically on-prem and optimized for hybrid setups, not for fully cloud-based solutions. B - EFS provides a fully managed, shared file storage system that works across multiple AZs. C - Even with Multi-Attach, sharing EBS volumes across AZs is pretty complex and error-prone. D - DataSync is designed for periodic synchronization and not real-time, frequent updates. E - The "no-cache" header ensures the content is always fetched fresh, and CloudFront delivers it efficiently with reduced latency. Although S3 is less efficient for frequent updates compared to a shared file system like EFS, but not a problem here.

Option A is out as storage gateway is suited for hybrid cloud use cases where on-premises workloads need access to AWS cloud storage

Regarding storage, I'd go for EFS, although it never mentions the requirement for file storage. Datasync can copy data between several storage types, including EFS, agents can be installed on EC2, but you cannot perform continuous synchronization of EC2 instances. Only storage. Cloudfront can publish both passive (s3) and active content (EC2+EFS) but wording doesn't tell a thing about such a share. And if it's a passive site why do we even have 2 storage types... I'd say, for me, the least bad solution seems to be B + E.

I choose BE

BD looks most logical to me - continuous changes required an update via DataSync